FSO é. tne, “/ “ig. 


2 


Vy —_f- 
Err Ge < . de y ea . 


SCHOOL HISTORIES 


SOME ERRORS IN THEM. 


BY 


SAMUEL A. GREEN, M.D. 


£ oe ' 
a Wo. y fi 
_ Rue 4) 
é ] Ps 
‘ae ae 
is . 
‘ 
‘ ” =< = 
3 . 
: 
: 





SCHOOL HISTORIES 


SOME ERRORS IN THEM. 


BY 


SAMUEL A. GREEN, M.D. 


BOSTON: 
FOR PRIVATE DISTRIBUTION. 
1872. 





can Edueéational Monthly,” for June, 


copies are now reprinted. 





SCHOOL HISTORIES AND SOME ERRORS 
IN THEM. 


THE number of School Histories of the United States has been 
increased within a short time by the publication of several new 
works. Each one doubtless has its own peculiar merit, and we 
think that any one of them is better than the histories of earlier 
days. Most of those books entered largely into details. They 
faithfully recorded every minor conflict, and delighted especially 
in the description of battles. We were told what the right 
wing of the army did and what happened to the left wing. 
The number of men engaged on each side was given, and the 
number of killed, wounded, and captured, was carefully recorded. 
Old histories delighted too in a formidable array of dates. 

Our latest writers have not altogether reformed these errors, 
but they have taken some steps in the right direction. ‘l'oo 
much space is yet given to battles and wars. Instead of naming 
every engagement, and giving the date of its occurrence, we 
should often prefer to say briefly, “after several battles,” or 
“after much fighting the decisive battle of the war was fought,” 
or the like. By such conciseness we should gain room for 
something vastly more useful to the scholar. 

The essential points of a good history for the school-room 
are, we think, a careful selection of important events and their 
narration in a direct, simple, but not childish style. The story 
should be told in an interesting manner, but concisely, and 
should be strictly accurate. 


Me 
. , ip 


+ 


For a long time we have felt impelled to correct certain errors 


in fact, which have found place in our school histories, and have ~ 


been handed down, some of them, for generations. We shall 
take the present opportunity to point out very briefly several of 
these errors. 

All, or nearly all, the histories give 1620 as the year when 
negro slavery was introduced into Virginia. The correct date 
of its introduction is 1619. The original account, and the basis 
of all our information on the subject, is found in “A Relation 
from Master John Rolfe,’’ which is contained in “ The Generall 
Historie of Virginia,” by John Smith, first published in 1624. 
Rolfe, after speaking of events that occurred earlier in the year 
1619, says (p. 126), “ About the last of August came in a dutch 
man of warre that sold us twenty negars.” The mistake of 
putting the date one year later was first made by Beverley, who 
wrote a history of Virginia, which was published in London, 
in 1705, and succeeding authors have copied the error. Mr. 
Bancroft, in the last edition of his history, has made the proper 
correction. : 

The story of Captain John Smith and Pocahontas is now 
’ regarded as a fabrication, by all who have closely examined the 
subject. It was, without doubt, the invention of the great 
adventurer and story-teller Smith himself, made at the time 
Pocahontas was in England, and an object of great interest and 
curiosity to the English people. 

Recent investigations place Edward Maria Winefield, the 
first president of the Virginia colonists at Jamestown, in a dif- 
ferent light from that in which he has generally been considered 
by historians. They have almost without exception called him 
hard names, —a knave, an embezzler of the public stores, &e. 
He has, in truth, been condemned upon the evidence of his 
enemies. Wingfield himself wrote an account of the first doings 
at Jamestown, but the narrative was never published till it was 
edited a few years since by an able historical critic, Charles 
Deane, LL.D., who came to the conclusion that Wingfield 
was, at least, as unselfish as any one of the Council. This body 


5 


had dwindled down till it consisted of only three members be- 
sides himself, — Smith, Martynn, and Ratcliffe. These three 
came one day to the President’s tent with “a warrant subscribed 
under their hands, to depose the President.” They did depose 
him and kept him a prisoner on board of the pinnace. Ratcliffe 
was made president. ‘The charges that were brought against 
Wingfield were exceedingly frivolous. The following is a 
specimen : — 


‘“¢ First Master President [ Ratcliffe] said that I had denyed him a 
penny whitle [small pocket-knife], a chickyn, a spoonful of beere, 
and serued him with foule corne.” . . . Answer of Wingfield: “ No 
penny whitle was asked me, but a knife, whereof I had none to spare. 
The Indyans had long before stoallen my knife. Of chickins I never 
did eat but one, and that in my sickness. Mr. Ratcliffe had before 
that time tasted of 4 or 5. I never denyed him (or any other) beare, 
when I had it. The corne was of the same w* wee all liued vpon.” 


In Worcester’s School History the following statement is 
made: “In 1584, the celebrated Sir Walter Raleigh, under a 
commission from Queen Elizabeth, to discover, occupy, and 
govern remote, heathen, and barbarous countries, . , . arrived 
in America, entered Pamlico Sound, and proceeded to Roanoke 
Island,” &c. (p. 259). ‘This paragraph has been taught for 
more than twenty years. Sir Walter Raleigh never came to or 
saw any part of what is now the United States, and at the time 
mentioned he was in England, dancing attendance upon the 
Queen. 

One history, lately published, which we have at our hand, 
says in regard to the Maryland Charter, that “by it equality in 
religious rights and civil freedom was [stc] guaranteed to all 
emigrants; ” all of which is untrue. The Charter made no 
provision for religious liberty or civil freedom. 

The school histories inform us that in 1622 a grant of the 
land between the rivers Merrimack and Kennebec was made 
to Gorges and Mason, and called Laconia. ‘The Laconia grant 
was not made in 1622, but in 1629, and Laconia in the writing 


” 


6 


was described as “all those lands and countries bordering upon 
the great lake, or lakes and rivers known by the name-of the ~ 
River and Lakes, or Rivers and Lakes of the Iroquois,” mean- 
ing thereby Lake Champlain. It turned out to be an imaginary 
province. The agents of Gorges who came over returned to 
England with a non est znventa provincia. The territory ceded 
by the grant of 1622 was, according to the charter, to be called 
the Province of Maine. 

In Swinton’s Condensed School History (p. 7), we are 
informed: that John and Sebastian Cabot discovered the Amer- 
_ ican continent at Cape Breton, in 1494. A few pages further 
on (p. 16), we read that “the North American Continent was 
first discovered by the Cabots sailing under the English flag in 
1493,” and again, on page 22, that “In 1494 (or 1497), the 
Cabots discovered North America at Cape Breton.” Here we 
certainly can take our choice. 

The true statement is that the Cabots discovered the Conti- 
nent in 1497. It is uncertain whether their first land-fall was 
on the coast of Labrador or Cape Breton Island. Mr. Swinton 
relies upon a map discovered a few years ago in Germany, and 
said to. have been made by Sebastian Cabot himself. It is 
asserted in the map that Sebastian Cabot made it in 15443; that 
is, about fifty years after the voyage. Who makes the assertion 
is not known. We have space only to say that any one who 
will read Dr. John G. Kohl’s remarks in relation to this map 
must regard it as of no authority whatever in settling the date 
of the discovery of the Continent. 

Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a Venetian merchant in London, wrote 
to his brothers in Venice, the letter bearing date August 23, 
1497, that “The Venetian, our countryman, who went with a 
ship from Bristol in quest of new islands, is returned, and says 
that seven hundred leagues hence he discovered land, the ter- 
ritory of the Grand Cham. He coasted for 300 leagues, and 
landed ; saw no human beings. . . . He was three months on 
the voyage. . . . The King of England is much pleased with 
this intelligence. ‘The King has promised that in the spring [of 


e 


7 


1498] our countryman shall have ten ships. . . . His name is 
Juan Cabot . . . these English run after him like mad people.” 

Rainiondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of Milan to Henry’s 
Court in London, writes to his government, August 24, 1497, 
that “some months ago, His Majesty [Henry VII.] sent out a 
Venetian who is a very good mariner, and has good skill in dis- 
covering new Islands ; and he has returned safe.” 

Do not these letters show very conclusively that the Cabots 
made their first voyage in 1497? And this is but a small part 
of the evidence we could give in favor of that date. 

In no less than three places in Anderson’s Grammar School 
History of the United States, we are informed that on the 19th 
of July, 1779, Major Lee surprised the British post at Paulus 
Hook (now Jersey City), and captured the garrison, consisting 
of 150 men. This gallant exploit did not take place on the 
19th of July, but just one month later, on the 19th of August. 
Congress ordered a gold medal to be struck and given to Lee in 
honor of this daring deed. On this medal is a Latin inscription 
which closes thus: “In memory of the conflict at Paulus’s Hook, 
Nineteenth of August, 1779.” A full account of this mistake 
is found in the Historical Magazine for December, 1868. 

We might keep on, but our space will not permit. These 
errors which we have indicated should be weeded out of the 
text-books. Historians should rely upon the best authorities 
and take care to represent them correctly. In this way alone 
can we hope to make of history something else than a “huge 
Mississippi of lies.” It has been said that history is a censpir- 
acy against truth, and sometimes it seems as if the assertion is 
not wholly without foundation. 

















% 





